Cohen accepted $500,000 from a sanctioned Russian oligarch after the Trump election?

The WoodenBoat Forum is sponsored by WoodenBoat Publications, publisher of WoodenBoat magazine. The Forum is a free service, and much like the "free" content on Public Radio, we hope you will support WoodenBoat by subscribing to this fabulous magazine. To get WoodenBoat delivered to your door or computer, mobile device of choice, etc, click WB Subscriptions.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ. You'll find answers to the frequently asked questions as well as basic rules. No need to register unless you would like to participate, although some images will only show if you are registered/logged-in.

You will need to register
before you can post: click the red register link or the register tab, above, right.

Selling/self promotion postings are verboten on the Forum. To advertise, take a look at WoodenBoat Advertising, or use your Google Adwords account if you want to advertise on the Forum.

Re: Cohen accepted $500,000 from a sanctioned Russian oligarch after the Trump electi

Originally Posted by mdh

Who’s paying Avenutty?

Maybe he's working pro bono. Maybe he will accept one third of the payment Trump has to shell out. One thing you can count on is he's not being paid by the Russians who backed Trump and his campaign through misdirection and social media.

Re: Cohen accepted $500,000 from a sanctioned Russian oligarch after the Trump electi

Originally Posted by ljb5

Right-wingers never use google to gain information. They only use it in a desperate, last-ditch attempt to find some specious third-tier source to dispute a well-established fact.

That's the way they do everything. There is nothing they do that is not, at its core, dishonest and self-serving.

Years ago, we had right-wing trolls who were capable of some interesting thought... but not our current crop. These guys might not be Russian bots, but they're just as shallow and predictable.

A current thread talks about the tension between religion and reason. Time to talk about the tension between tribalism and reason. Certain results are indeed inevitable. Go into the streets and listen, they fill the air, you feel like you're swimming in them.

In much of history tribe and religion are one. The only thing new under the sun is the enlightenment, which is when the renaissance caught fire. Not really new, of course. A re-birth. The re-birth of the supremacy of reason over all comers, in perpetual struggle. Athena sprang from the forehead of Zeus, fully grown and dressed for battle. Get ready, MEM.

Re: Cohen accepted $500,000 from a sanctioned Russian oligarch after the Trump electi

Originally Posted by Ian McColgin

Actually, this all seems a bit flakey to me. How does Avenatti know all this? If true, Avenatti has awesome investigatory powers.

Originally Posted by delecta

That's fine but how did Avenatti get this information? I think you questioning this is accurate and still not answered.

Is this a leak through Mueller?

Originally Posted by Osborne Russell

Where did Avenatti get this information?

The stuff seized from Cohen's office is still privileged until declared otherwise, right? Even after it's declared not-privileged, surely the US Attorney keeps it secret?

Originally Posted by Canoez

I'm thinking that discovery in the case filed by Avenatti on behalf of Stormy Daniels/Stephanie Clifford, has given Avenatti a window into the accounts held by Cohen from which the $130,000 was paid.

Originally Posted by delecta

Nope, sorry dude, the information is way to detailed.

This is a set up, leaked from Muellers office, Trump will fire him and the whole investigation will be compromised.

Michael Avenatti received a slew of information from Stormy Daniel's first attorney, Keith Davidson. Davidson was colluding with Micheal Cohen to compromise his advocacy for Stormy Daniels. During the course of that collusion Cohen and Davidson exchanged emails. Those emails are part of the case file compiled by Davidson on behalf of Daniels. Case files are generally deemed to belong to the client. And all the information in the case file was turned over to Daniel's new attorney, Michael Avenatti.

Over the past few days, Michael Avenatti, the attorney for Stormy Daniels, has been steadily releasing what appear to be private communications between Michael Cohen, Donald Trumpís longtime attorney, and Keith Davidson, who represented Daniels when she inked a $130,000 hush-money agreement that was facilitated through a shell company set up by Cohen.

These emails are evidence of questionable, if not unethical, collusion between Cohen and Davidson, who are ostensibly representing opposing sides of the dispute.

One email, released by Avenatti on Twitter on Thursday, shows that Cohen was communicating with Davidson in the days after the FBI raided his home and office and seized his phones. This email suggests an ongoing collaboration between Davidson and Cohen, even though the two are not
known to be involved in any current legal matter.

Michael Avenatti
@MichaelAvenatti
On April 9, the FBI raided Mr. Cohenís home, office and hotel room. Within 48 hours, Mr. Cohen sent the below email to Mr. Davidson. Why? They had no ongoing legal matter at the time. Was it part of an attempt by Mr. Cohen to obstruct justice or worse? #basta

9:25 AM - May 10, 2018
14.6K 7,408 people are talking about this

On Friday, Avenatti posted another email between Davidson and Cohen, from February, in which Cohen argues that Davidson should not forward part of the hush money agreement to Davidsonís new lawyer. (This didnít work, as Avenatti obtained the ďSide Letter AgreementĒ and released it as part of Daniels lawsuit against Cohen and Trump, filed in March.)

Michael Avenatti
@MichaelAvenatti
Knowing what we know now, no wonder Mr. Cohen was doing everything he could to interfere with Ms. Daniels' efforts to get new counsel. He was desperate to avoid the cover-up from surfacing and was afraid that competent counsel would expose him and Mr. Trump. #MoreToCome #Basta

8:03 AM - May 11, 2018
19.9K 7,696 people are talking about this

This second email is not actually new and was released to NBC News in March. But it raises the question: How is Avenatti getting these emails?

As a matter of practice, lawyers maintain case files for the benefit of their clients. If the client decides to seek new representation, the information in the case file is generally deemed to belong to the client, and itís then forwarded to the new attorney. In this case, it appears that Davidson turned over these communications to Avenatti as part of Danielsí case file.

Avenatti hinted as much during a hearing in New York in late April in which he sought to intervene in a dispute about how the materials seized in the raid of Michael Cohenís office would be handled. Avenatti argued that Davidson and Cohen were continuing to discuss his clientís case and that those communications were part of her case file, which belongs to her.

Of course, those communications, whether they be by email, text messages, or otherwise, would technically belong to my client because it would be part of her attorney-client file.

In other words, Avenatti is concerned there are more materials that belong to his client that were among those seized in the raid. The judge has not yet ruled on his request.

The nature of Cohenís relationship with Davidson is key. They were supposed to be on opposite sides of a number of disputes. But the emails are evidence that the relationship between the two was more collaborative.

Davidsonís representation of Stormy Daniels began when Cohen heard that Daniels was shopping her story around to various media outlets. It was at this point that Cohen asked Davidson to reach out to her, Davidson revealed in an interview with CNN.

Cohen has admitted to referring at least one other client to Davidson.

Were they each sincerely representing the interests of their clients? Or were they working in tandem to purchase their silence of women at a reduced rate and under favorable terms?

Avenatti also says the emails contain evidence that Cohen was seeking to use his relationship with Davidson to interfere with Daniels obtaining new counsel. The purpose, according to Avenatti, was to cover up the other activities of Essential Consultants, the shell company used to pay Daniels, which also received millions from corporations seeking access to Trump.

Re: Cohen accepted $500,000 from a sanctioned Russian oligarch after the Trump electi

Originally Posted by Osborne Russell

OK, it seems some official decided to leak this stuff from the Treasury Department. To whom, exactly? Not to Avenatti, I hope. It's a crime. How to overcome the implication that he solicited it?

If it went from leaker to press to Avenatti, that's also a secret between them. Why did things go that way, and why is it a secret?

Why is Avenatti doing this? He represents Stormy Daniels.

It turns out you're right, it was leaked. The leaker says that it needed to be leaked before it disappeared, like some other records. I suppose that makes the leaker, in his or her own eyes, a whistleblower. Whether the law agrees remains to be seen.

Re: Cohen accepted $500,000 from a sanctioned Russian oligarch after the Trump electi

Originally Posted by johnw

It turns out you're right, it was leaked. The leaker says that it needed to be leaked before it disappeared, like some other records. I suppose that makes the leaker, in his or her own eyes, a whistleblower. Whether the law agrees remains to be seen.

In my understanding it's not illegal to publish leaked stuff, and there's confidentiality of sources, but those aren't really the issue so far, which is, how and why did it come to be leaked?

I imagine the gov is often reluctant to prosecute leaks because it just reveals more secrets.

Seems the leaker knew from Doc 3 that Docs 1 and 2 were gone. Doc 3 refers to them. Doesn't that mean that what got leaked was Doc 3? What else was in it, that wasn't in 1 and 2?

Why wasn't this a matter for the leaker to take to his/her supervisor? Is there some suggestion that the supervisor had something to do with the disappearance of 1 and 2?

Re: Cohen accepted $500,000 from a sanctioned Russian oligarch after the Trump electi

Originally Posted by oznabrag

Just a little cognitive dissonance there.

Yeah, you have a problem with that. That's OK, I'll let it go.

I'm not sure how your computer works but when a file is gone, it's gone. I suppose if he was watching it with baited breath every single day and then all of a sudden a file or two is missing, that might excite him. I wonder why he would be watching this? In any event the bank that created the original sar would still have a record and I'm sure if he was watching it there was a back up which contained all the original files.

The person that did this needs to be questioned, it should not have been his decision alone to make and he should be held accountable.

Re: Cohen accepted $500,000 from a sanctioned Russian oligarch after the Trump electi

Originally Posted by delecta

I'm not sure how your computer works but when a file is gone, it's gone.

That's probably not true, especially if the files were on a network with remote nightly server backups. There are also numerous ways of recovering deleted files, especially if they are important enough to get a good IT professional to work on the machine.

Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race. H. G. Wells

Re: Cohen accepted $500,000 from a sanctioned Russian oligarch after the Trump electi

It's not whether the files exist "somewhere" it's the fact that they were removed from the master index by which they would be easily found. If they aren't in the index, they won't show up during a search for data, thus don't "exist".

Think of it as pulling the reference to a book from the card catalog (author, subject, and title). The book is still on the shelf, but unless you know it's there, will be rather difficult to find.

Re: Cohen accepted $500,000 from a sanctioned Russian oligarch after the Trump electi

Originally Posted by isla

That's probably not true, especially if the files were on a network with remote nightly server backups. There are also numerous ways of recovering deleted files, especially if they are important enough to get a good IT professional to work on the machine.

You pretty much have to physically destroy a hard drive to guarantee that the files can't be recovered.

Re: Cohen accepted $500,000 from a sanctioned Russian oligarch after the Trump electi

Originally Posted by mikefrommontana

It's not whether the files exist "somewhere" it's the fact that they were removed from the master index by which they would be easily found. If they aren't in the index, they won't show up during a search for data, thus don't "exist".

Think of it as pulling the reference to a book from the card catalog (author, subject, and title). The book is still on the shelf, but unless you know it's there, will be rather difficult to find.

Re: Cohen accepted $500,000 from a sanctioned Russian oligarch after the Trump electi

Originally Posted by mikefrommontana

It's not whether the files exist "somewhere" it's the fact that they were removed from the master index by which they would be easily found. If they aren't in the index, they won't show up during a search for data, thus don't "exist".

Think of it as pulling the reference to a book from the card catalog (author, subject, and title). The book is still on the shelf, but unless you know it's there, will be rather difficult to find.

Yes that makes sense. It also suggests that, considering the location of the DB and the security considerations, the person who edited the master index would have to be somebody with a high level of access. On the other hand, I suppose it is possible that the two missing pages were never entered into the DB in the first place, which again suggests interference at a high level.

It was suggested in the New Yorker article that some senior person may have imposed a high level of security clearance on those records, making them unavailable to the ordinary investigators. I'm not buying that, because if that was the case, I suspect the DB would show the existence of the records in the index, but flag a "You are not authorized to view this record" if anybody without the necessary clearance attempted to view it.

Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race. H. G. Wells